Evolution did no such thing.

I can't tell if you're confusing fossils (same creature, same time, must have been same location) or thinking that land masses "evolve", but either way....

Actually evolution did predict that.

The earliest example is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Line which was named after Alfred Russel Wallace who independently discovered the theory of evolution.

This line indicates, based on the distribution of related species today, what islands were connected with Asia in the last versus which other nearby ones weren't. The line was drawn before fossil data or underwater topography could confirm or explain the past connection. Without the hypothesis that similar species are similar because they share a recent ancestor, this data on extant species would not have lead to any conclusions.

Moving forward, in decades after evolution and before plate tectonics, there were many examples of scientists drawing connections between once connected masses based on related species - but not the same species in both places. For instance both India and Madagascar contain rich lemur fossils that are different but clearly related. That relation was explained by a past land mass called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuria_(continent). The conclusion was incorrect, but it is true that Indian and Madagascar once were connected and did exchange fauna, including lemurs.

Actually, it doesn't (there are non-slaver ants, so if their behavior is also evolutionary, you have evolution predicting X and not-X).

You clearly have failed to understand the example.

Ants generally feed female larvae something like 3x as much as they feed male larvae. (I think the ratio is 3 to 1, but this is pulled from a course 20 years ago, and I can't swear to that figure.) Wilson came up with an evolutionary explanation for this. Based on this explanation HE PREDICTED that if the queen was in control of the care of the young, this discrepancy would disappear. Slaver ants provide a test case, because (at least in some species) the queen does control the behavior of the slaves.

In slaver ants he found, AS PREDICTED BY THEORY, that when the queen was in charge (ie there were slaves), male larvae received as much food as female larvae. But when a slaver colony had no slaves, they revert to the typical 3 to 1 ratio that is common among ants.

There is no X and not-X. There is behavior when queen is in control versus behavior when workers are in control. Non-slaver ants differ from slavers in that the workers are always in control of care of the larvae.

> Thus it is a prediction of evolution, regardless of the fact that you can try to explain it with selective breeding.

The claim was that evolution was necessary to predict something. If said something can be predicted by other means, evolution is not necessary.

Scroll back. Your demand was, "Name three things in biology that were predicted using evolution?" This is, in fact, an example that was predicted using evolution. The existence of other possible explanations does not change the fact that evolution was, in fact, used to predict this particular thing.

As I've written before, I believe in evolution, but most of the arm-chair supporters offer false arguments.

This is true of most topics. A lot of armchair supporters know the orthodoxy, but do not understand it and cannot defend it. People believe in all sorts of alternative theories usually have an easy time dispatching these armchair supporters because while they are wrong in a big way, they actually know more than the armchair supporters do.

But I would like to believe that I know more about evolution than the average armchair supporter. After all your average armchair supporter hasn't done things like audit a graduate seminar about evolution theory. :-)